Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that the tool reads the live order record, handles missing records gracefully by returning a clear status and routing to the desk, and explicitly guarantees it never reports fabricated tracking state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the core function, the fallback behavior, and the accuracy guarantee. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the missing-record case, and the integrity guarantee. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'routes to the desk' means, but overall it gives an agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, order_id, has a description in the schema. The tool description reinforces that the ID is the lookup key but does not add format or additional semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('logistics status of an order'), and a required identifier ('by its id'). This clearly distinguishes track_shipment from siblings like get_live_quote or get_product, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for fetching live logistics status for a specific order, which provides clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.